Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Harper's faded economic vision for Canada



Pretty much sums it up.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Mr. Tory - tear down this wall

John Allemang wrote an interesting piece in today's Globe concerning the decision facing Toronto council about whether to spend another $1 billion to perpetuate the bad idea known as the Gardiner extension or do something more progressive than repeating past mistakes.

That article is entitled: Beneath the Gardiner, a soul-destroying wasteland lurks  to which I posed the following comment:

Well put John Allemang, and from an interesting perspective, that of the pedestrian.

Any decision concerning this portion of the Gardiner needs to be made, not in isolation, but in the broader context of what's to be done with the entirety of the Gardiner. $1 billion is no trifling sum of money that Toronto taxpayers will be spending. This decision also needs to be made in the broader Toronto interests, rather than the more narrow interests who are calling for a preservation of the status quo (at a cost of $1 billion).

I think everyone agrees that the Gardiner is an idea that did not realize on its original 1950's promise, and is not something that any urban planner would recommend today. That said, how can it possible be considered a good idea to simply perpetuate a bad idea, by preserving  the Gardiner at a cost of 41 billion?

Tory's hybrid idea sounds more like a campaign to mask all of the obvious ills of the Gardiner, with some token gestures of making what's bad feel less bad, much like the exercise of putting lipstick on a pig.

Fixing what's wrong with the Gardiner won't be cheap, but rather than throwing $1 billion to perpetuate the bad idea known as the Gardiner, how about spending some real money and coming up with a real solution, such as the tunnel that is being proposed? Toronto and Torontonians deserve real solutions and not band aid solutions as the incremental cost, as between the two, will prove itself money well spent over the short, immediate and long term and won't be a decision that future generations will be second guessing, as we are now doing with the Gardiner.

Maybe we could call it the Tory Tunnel as that might appeal to the Mayor's ego and might get him to think straight on this major decision that he's presently headed down the wrong direction on.
Well put John Allemang, and from an interesting perspective, that of the pedestrian.

Any decision concerning this portion of the Gardiner needs to me made, not in isolation, but in the broader context of what's to be done with the entirety of the Gardiner. $1 billion is no trifling sum of money that Toronto taxpayers will be spending. This decision also needs to be made in the context of the broader Toronto interests, rather than the more narrow interests who are calling for a preservation of the status quo (at a cost of $1 billion).

I think everyone agrees that the Gardiner is an idea that did not realize on its original 1950's promise, and is not something any urban planner would recommend today. That said, how can it possibly be considered a good idea to simply perpetuate a bad idea, by preserving the Gardiner at a cost of $1 billion, as people like John Tory are proposing?

Tory's hybrid idea sounds more like a campaign to mask all the obvious ills of the Gardiner with some token gestures of making what's bad feel less bad, much like the exercise of putting lipstick on a pig.

Fixing what's wrong with the Gardiner won't be cheap, but rather than throwing $1 billion to perpetuate the bad idea known as the Gardiner, how about spending some real money and come up with a real solution, such as the tunnel that is being proposed? Toronto and Torontonians deserve real solutions and not band aid solution, as the incremental cost, as between the two, will prove itself money well spent over the short, immediate and long term and won't be a decision that future generations will be second guessing, as we are now doing with the Gardiner.

Maybe we could call it the Tory Tunnel as that might appeal to the Mayor's ego and might get him to think straight on this major decision that he's presently headed down the wrong direction on.


Well put John Allemang, and from an interesting perspective, that of the pedestrian.

Any decision concerning this portion of the Gardiner needs to me made, not in isolation, but in the broader context of what's to be done with the entirety of the Gardiner. $1 billion is no trifling sum of money that Toronto taxpayers will be spending. This decision also needs to be made in the context of the broader Toronto interests, rather than the more narrow interests who are calling for a preservation of the status quo (at a cost of $1 billion).

I think everyone agrees that the Gardiner is an idea that did not realize on its original 1950's promise, and is not something any urban planner would recommend today. That said, how can it possibly be considered a good idea to simply perpetuate a bad idea, by preserving the Gardiner at a cost of $1 billion, as people like John Tory are proposing?

Tory's hybrid idea sounds more like a campaign to mask all the obvious ills of the Gardiner with some token gestures of making what's bad feel less bad, much like the exercise of putting lipstick on a pig.

Fixing what's wrong with the Gardiner won't be cheap, but rather than throwing $1 billion to perpetuate the bad idea known as the Gardiner, how about spending some real money and come up with a real solution, such as the tunnel that is being proposed? Toronto and Torontonians deserve real solutions and not band aid solution, as the incremental cost, as between the two, will prove itself money well spent over the short, immediate and long term and won't be a decision that future generations will be second guessing, as we are now doing with the Gardiner.

Maybe we could call it the Tory Tunnel as that might appeal to the Mayor's ego and might get him to think straight on this major decision that he's presently headed down the wrong direction on.


Well put John Allemang, and from an interesting perspective, that of the pedestrian.

Any decision concerning this portion of the Gardiner needs to me made, not in isolation, but in the broader context of what's to be done with the entirety of the Gardiner. $1 billion is no trifling sum of money that Toronto taxpayers will be spending. This decision also needs to be made in the context of the broader Toronto interests, rather than the more narrow interests who are calling for a preservation of the status quo (at a cost of $1 billion).

I think everyone agrees that the Gardiner is an idea that did not realize on its original 1950's promise, and is not something any urban planner would recommend today. That said, how can it possibly be considered a good idea to simply perpetuate a bad idea, by preserving the Gardiner at a cost of $1 billion, as people like John Tory are proposing?

Tory's hybrid idea sounds more like a campaign to mask all the obvious ills of the Gardiner with some token gestures of making what's bad feel less bad, much like the exercise of putting lipstick on a pig.

Fixing what's wrong with the Gardiner won't be cheap, but rather than throwing $1 billion to perpetuate the bad idea known as the Gardiner, how about spending some real money and come up with a real solution, such as the tunnel that is being proposed? Toronto and Torontonians deserve real solutions and not band aid solution, as the incremental cost, as between the two, will prove itself money well spent over the short, immediate and long term and won't be a decision that future generations will be second guessing, as we are now doing with the Gardiner.

Maybe we could call it the Tory Tunnel as that might appeal to the Mayor's ego and might get him to think straight on this major decision that he's presently headed down the wrong direction on.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Don't fire Evan Solomon, reassign him as CMO of the CBC

Quite interesting that the CBC, as an organization, is struggling with how to monetize its service, while enterprising folks like Amanda Lang and Evan Solomon figured that out a long time ago, albeit  leveraging off their CBC gigs for personal gain.

Maybe Evan should be reassigned to Chief Monetization Officer of the CBC instead of fired? That way he could employ his true talent for leveraging off the CBC brand and generating money for the cash strapped organization, in the same way he did for his own self, by brokering art deals and using his guest list at Power and Politics as a "prospect list".

Amanda, on the other hand, should simply be fired, as she is beyond reprieve or useful purpose.

Unfortunately what neither Amanda Lang or Evan Solomon realize is that whatever power they think they possess, it's very fleeting and actually not even theirs to begin with.
People like Amanda Lang and Evan Solomon got easily seduced into thinking they possess the power they employ, when in fact that power derives from their employer, namely the CBC.  Management of the CBC, on the other hand, seem to think the power resides with their on-air personalities, which is why these scandals are perpetuated in the CBC rather than dealt with.

Management of the CBC has created a culture where these kinds of abuses have been allowed to flourish, and management are the main culprit, which is not to absolve folks like Amanda and Evan, who simply opportunistically exploited a weak system, as greed driven persons are want to do.
David Brooks of the New York Times often makes this very point when he appears on PBS Newshour every Friday saying things like "I doubt whether much of what I have to say would be of much relevance if it weren't for the fact that I write for the New York Times."

Time for the media "personalities" at the CBC along with management of the CBC to awaken to that reality as well.

Evan Solomon: Latest entrant to Canadian Journalists' Hall of Shame

Canadian journalists have their Canadian journalists awards, that are awarded annually for excellence in journalism, whereas it seems the Canadian Journalists' Hall of Shame, awarded for excesses as a  journalist, requires daily updates. It currently reads:

Canadian Journalists' Hall of Shame

Evan Solomon of CBC
Amanda Lang  of CBC
Mike Duffy of CTV
Peter Mansbridge  of CBC
Leslie Roberts of Global News
Jian Ghomeshi  of CBC
Pamela Wallin  of CTV

Friday, May 15, 2015

Adscam 2, the sequel, starring Pierre Poilievre



This sounds a lot like the sequel to Adscam, only with a new cast of characters, but hopefully the same outcome, namely a new party in office.

Adscam 2 coming to an polling booth near you. Just make sure to avoid getting the polling station location from some Robocall ne'er-do-well. 

Poilievre paid public servants overtime to help film promotional video

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Canada's closet leader won't participate in election debates!



For the latest news in our gutless leader.

This is no surprise, especially with Elizabeth May as part of the election debate mix!

Back in the 2008 Election, where I ran as the Liberal candidate in the Whitby-Oshawa riding,
Flaherty bailed out of the marquis televised debate on CTV.
The producers of CTV were running cover for Flaherty on their reasons for not holding the debate, saying that a number of candidates declined participating. 
They were right, as that "number" turned out to be  the number 1, as in Flaherty and Flaherty alone. 
Being  on excellent terms with the other candidates (Green and NDP) I was able to quickly reveal this CTV/Flaherty lie for what it was. After I had exposed the lie for what it was, I called the CTV producer back, had her repeat her lie, and then told her it was a total fabrication, as Flaherty was clearly the person behind why the televised debate did not occur.

Welcome to Harper land. When he isn't hiding in closets, he's running from debates. What a leader. NOT

Don't you think it's time Canadians cleaned out the closet and elected a real leader?